Obama’s Risible Claim that “war” isn’t “war”

Obama is beginning to never cease to disappoint. These are his lawyers’s nihilistic arguments that “war” isn’t “war”. Do a word search on how many times the word “war” appears in their argument. They give sophists a bad name. It is now time to no longer listen to his speech but watch his actions. He is becoming even more of a disappointment than the squalid Clintons. And we had such “hopes for the man from Hope” and such audacity from the man from wherever. He is audacious in that he shows an impudent lack of respect for law and order. He is now the leader of the party of political murders [the Democrats] while his opponents are merely the party of torture.

For a definition of “war”, one might go back closer to the founders’ time… say to Johnson’s or Webster’s definitions for war. Johnson’s [1755], which is quite serviceable, “The exercise of violence under sovereign command against withstanders.” It may seem sophomoric to rely on a dictionary meaning for a word when lives are being taken. War is the greatest crime and the genesis of so many other crimes. Has Obama turned himself into a war criminal by preparing for and waging a war of aggression? But we life in times when power tries to bleed meaning from words. Such denigration cannot be permitted. One is driven to the conclusion that he [and his gang] truly believe most of the people are mostly stupid most of the time. We should disappoint their expectations.